Pinku Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.55017 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -367 Year- 2016 Thana -GAYA MUFFSIL District- GAYA ====================================================== Pinku Kumar, Son of Ganesh Prasad Gupta @ Ganesh Sao, resident of Village- Manpur, Railway Line, Police Station- Muffassil, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No-2 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 23-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case no.367 of 2016, registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation of informant Soni Kumari is that petitioner talked with her regarding marriage with her thereafter both of them used to meet occasionally. On 06.08.2016, petitioner called her on mobile for seeing his new school at Muksudpur Saraiya then informant proceeded according to instruction of the petitioner and reached at Buniyadganj Bye-pass, where petitioner was already present with scooty and she was taken at the said school. After sometimes, informant was boarded in the Jeep forcibly by this petitioner and she was taken at Rajgir, where petitioner gave allurement to the informant

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55017 of 2016 (2) dt.23-12-2016 2/2 to perform marriage and petitioner and put Sindur in her head and developed physical relation with her and also asked the informant to take her house, but in the way, the petitioner left her house. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the petitioner used to run a school in which informant, who is a widow, was a teacher and she filed the present case only to give undue pressure to perform the marriage, while the petitioner was already a married person and on 22.09.2016, after knowing this fact that petitioner was married man, the informant has filed the compromise petition to the effect that she has filed the present case to give pressure to perform the marriage and petitioner had not developed any physical relationship with her, who is widow.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 367 of 2016, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T